% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Rambus Inc. Message Board

  • scrane4014 scrane4014 Jul 30, 2011 12:54 PM Flag

    destroying documents is not a good practice

    rambus has been caught in their own web of lies, misrepresentations and deceit. when they loose to micron this will spell the end of the way this company does business. they, rambus, were the ones who sought to monopolize the industry, believing that everyone, one way or another should be paying them royalities.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • The writ will probably not be granted. But who is in control of the timing now?
      It is Rambus turn to delay.

    • If you think the Supreme Court is going to agree to hear this case, you deserve to lose all of your money!

    • Wrong they refused the request for a rehearing before an EnBank panel of Judges. A necessary step before an appeal to the Supreme Court for a writ.

    • Wow, somebody just go schooled! RMBS longs are about to get May 13thed again!

    • doesn't include awarding Ramscam a durable monopoly in any data interface technology applicable to DRAM data transfer or allow it to abusively restrict or eliminate competitive technology developments and extract undue rents on the basis of its late-filed claims.

      The "least onerous" sanction doesn't provide for the rescue of any of the wasteful and ill-advised proceedings in the Northern District of California or allow for any "salvage" operation to rescue any claim that was intended to "shoot [consensus industry interface standard] in the head" or lead to a conclusion that Rambus' litigation scheme was anything other than an attempt at exclusionary abuse of the patent system and the legal process.

      All of Ramscam's claims have been decided on long ago, you can look it up at the old stock pumping fan-clubhouse:

      "The CAFC reviewed all 209 claims in the '898 application. The court determined there was no substantial evidence to support a holding that the '898 application had claims that would reasonably be needed to practice the SDRAM standard."

      None of the stunts they've pulled since then have made any difference or changed the fact that there's nothing that was necessary for the implementation of any of the JEDEC SDRAM standards in the 1990 RamBus "invention". "Claims" made to the contrary are simply false and only put forward in furtherance of Ramscam's ongoing scheme to defraud the public and the courts.

      Entertainingly enough, since the '898 application wouldn't support claims necessary for the practice of any Rambus interface "standard", Ramscam is doubly hosed. The later disclosures, capable of supporting claims to protect at least the means and modes of operation embodied in the actual RDRAM and Rambus products are immediately tainted by Ramscam's deceptive, inequitable and malicious conduct in its fraudulently based "Lexington" litigation campaign.

    • You missed the point.

      The appellate court remanded Robinson's draconian ruling back to her, recommending the "least onerous" of sanctins, even if she is able to establish both bad faith and prejudice.

      Lastly, Rambus still has the option of taking the matter to the US Supreme Court..

    • Just to let you know; the court already made a ruling some time ago and refused a RMBS appeal.


    • Correct. There must be bad faith (Whyte in the the Hynix case said no) and prejudice (again, Whyte said no). Judge Robinson didn't bother to address bad faith and prejudice before invalidating patents, so that's why she got remanded. MU did not win here - at least not yet.

    • Destroying documents is not a Crime. Destroying documents is done every day in every buisiness in North America. Destroying documents is not a license to steal from Rambus. That is what the court decided. Where was the criminal intent? What evidence of Fraud was there? That is what the court decided. That is the question the Appeals court wants the answer to. That is what we are waiting for.

    • what exactly are you not understanding. documents were destroyed!! the court ruled that a jury could reasonabily assume that this was in preparation for litigation. what do you not understand??? you keep stating name me a single document that was destroyed, the court ruled that on this special shredding days tons of correspondences were desposed of. if you want to know exactly what ask rambus, what kind of point are you trying to make. simply what your stating makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    • View More Messages
11.77-0.50(-4.07%)Jun 24 4:00 PMEDT